--I find it truly disturbing that people don't understand why the empire is evil! It appears that even Darth Wong has been corrupted by the dark side and can no longer tell good from evil. First, I will describe what a government is. I will then describe what a "good" government is. Finally, I will show that the empire is far from "good" which makes it "evil."

--A government is a system of organization and control over a large number of individuals.

--A "good" government is one that restricts individual freedoms by the minimum extent necessary to protect the hierarchy of basic individual rights. Any additional powers must be given freely to the government by all the individuals those powers affect.
--The hierarchy of basic individual rights is rather complicated, but most of it can be derived by considering the interaction of two sentient entities.
-For interactions outside the control of either entity each entity has the primary right to leave the interaction such that each entity profitted or lost equally. If that is not possible each entity must have a weighted chance to profit or lose based on how much each entity stands to profit or lose. They also have the right to a minimum total profit minus lose.
-For interactions under the control of at least one of the entities each entity has the primary right to minimize the interaction. In addition, each entity has a primary right to a percentage of any profit, and are responsible for a percentage of any lose equal to its percentage of control over the interaction. Furthermore, an entity may not force any interaction that may result in loses they cannot afford. The assesment of profit and lose must exclude consideration of anything that is supernatural (with respect to the entities involved).
-If these rights are abridged without the informed agreement of the entity acted upon that entity has the primary right to take by force what was taken from it, the cost of the use of force, and an additional amount equal to the amount taken times the projected ratio of success to failer of the action of the entity that abridged the primary rights.
-Of course, the entities also have the primary right to the informed abridgement of their own rights.
--This set of rules can be applied to any interaction I can think of off the top of my head, but may need refinement since it is a newly formed general equation as opposed to a number of specific considerations that I understand in greater depth. In addition, when considering large numbers of individual entities and confronted with a situation that forces the abridgement some individual's primary rights the rights to be abridged must be weighted, summed, and minimized over the entire population.

--Now let us consider the Empire. Clearly it did not have a right to all the powers it had. In fact, it had so much power it could do just about anything it wanted. It also exercised its excesive powers to abridge the primary rights of the governed without their informed consent and without being forced to abridge some individual rights to protect a greater number of others. That means that any individual who did not agree with the nature of government had a right to act with force to change it. In addition, the Empire had no right to resist such a change. Therefore, all the damage resulting from the conflict between the Rebellion and the Empire is the fault of the Empire.

I find your definition odd. I believe a "good" government is one that can protect it's citizens. Whether that be from forgien invaders or from each other. Consider the alternative to the Empire, the Old Republic. Weak, inefficient, couldn't even protect it's own citizens against the trade federation, buericratic to the point of uselessness, it could preform none of the duties governments are created to do. In short, it reminds me of the UN.

Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15amPosts: 5613Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!

SirNitram wrote:

The Empire is evil. But not all the Empire's citizens are evil. -Edgar, FF6.

This is surprisingly relevent, when it comes from a video game.

The Majority of the Empire is good....and there are those in it..that follows the New Order or evil....but i'm just saying that the Empire is not really THAT evil...

Most imperial officers follow orders from superiors who are evil for example Tarkin...does following orders from a higher ranking evil officer make u evil too? No u'll be scared shitless b/c you may be executed if u don't.

--There have been several different arguements that the Empire is not evil. First, I will list them, then I will anhilate them.

Arguements for the Empire so far

1. A government is good if it can protect its citizens.
2. The Empire never harmed loyal citizens.
3. Everything under the control of the Empire was not evil.
4. The people who took orders and carried them out for the Empire were not evil. Only leaders like Darth Vadar, the Emperor, and other top brass were evil. Therefore, the Empire as a whole was not evil.
5. Carrying out unjust orders from evil people under the threat of death does not make you evil. Since most people in the military fell into this catagory they are excused for their actions.
6. The Empire was better than the old Republic.

Anhilation of pro-Empire arguements

1. Just because a gov. can protect its citizens doesn't mean it is good. A gov. must protect its citizens primary rights and definately NOT abridge them to be considered good. The Empire did not do this.
2. This arguement must have resulted from brain damaged. Using this reasoning the Empire would be considered good even if it tortured every good sentient in the universe to death so long as they were not loyal to the Empire.
3. Just because some things the Empire controlled were not necessarily evil does not mean the Empire itself was not evil.
4. The Empire was a dictatorship. A dictatorship is a gov. where control is exercised by one person. Therefore, the nature of the gov. depends on the actions of one person. That one person was VERY evil and so where the actions of his dictatorship. This makes the Empire evil. Futhermore, it is only the actions of a gov. that count when determining if it is good or not. The actions of the Empire clearly put it in the catagory of evil.
5. I don't care who you are or what your situation is. You are responsible for carrying out any actions under your control so long as you are of sound mind. If Darth Vadar orders you to kill an innocent and that innocent hasn't willingly given the gov. power to take its life unjustly then you are answerable for that act even more than Vadar. In cases of fear of torture one usually has the option of suicide. To not opt for suicide under such circumstances is equivalent to stealing from someone else to preserve one's own life. You are not justified in doing this! If you are dealt a lousy hand it is not right to steal from others to make your hand better.
6. This is another silly idea. Even is you were to show the old Republic was the most evil thing to ever existed that would not make the Empire good.

So you are comming from a moral perspective. I was saying the Empire was "good" because it carried out the purpose of nearly all governments, that being, maintaining order and peace.

Quote:

1. Just because a gov. can protect its citizens doesn't mean it is good. A gov. must protect its citizens primary rights and definately NOT abridge them to be considered good. The Empire did not do this.

How do you know what rights the citizens of this universe have? And if you do, when were they abridged?

Quote:

2. This arguement must have resulted from brain damaged. Using this reasoning the Empire would be considered good even if it tortured every good sentient in the universe to death so long as they were not loyal to the Empire.

I was not responding to you, I was responding to Howedar saying that the Empire was a s dangerous to it's own citizens as others. Insults will not help your arguement at all.

Quote:

6. This is another silly idea. Even is you were to show the old Republic was the most evil thing to ever existed that would not make the Empire good.

I prefer my own government over communism. That does not mean I think my government is perfect, jus that is is better than Communism. The Empire was far from perfect, but I think it was preferable to the OR.

Good and evil are moral definitions. Ask an israli and a palistinian their definitions of good and evil, and they will be different. Right and wrong, on the other hand, is a matter of legality. And the empire was right in the full measure of the law.

Was the empire evil as most of us would define it? Perhaps. It does, however, depend on your sources. If you look only at the movies, what evil has it done? Nothing. The evil comes from the EU. And one must bare in mind who's side of the story is being told... the rebels/new republics. Of course they are going to portray the empire in an evil light, just like germany portrayed the UK in an evil light durring WWII. History is writen by the winners, while popular sci-fi such as Star Wars is "writen by the heros".

--"So you are comming from a moral perspective."
--This is clearly the case. I don't see how evil can be viewed in any other context.

--"'2. This arguement must have resulted from brain damaged.'
-I was not responding to you, I was responding to Howedar saying that the Empire was a s dangerous to it's own citizens as others."
--It is not clear to me what the point of your post was if not to rebutt Howedar, however, be that as it may perhaps I read too much into your post (if so I appoligize for the misunderstanding). Nevertheless, if it was to rebutt Howedar then you are basically saying "The Empire never harmed loyal citizens." and is therefore not evil.

--"How do you know what rights the citizens of this universe have?"
--One's basic rights are not arbitrary and are derived from very basic principles.
-It is clear that the only thing that matters in nature is power. If you have the power to do something then you can do it regardless of what anyone might think or want.
-However, when any individual looks at the big picture it should be clear that they neither know everything or can control everything. This means they cannot properly determine whether or not they can accomplish the most by the use of their power and that in general it is rather unlikely. This means we need to consider the best way to interact with others who will react to our actions.
-If an individual simply does things because they can without regard to the interest of others then the others have no reason to act with regard to the interest of that individual. This leads to a continual contest of power which is very destructive. On the other hand if each individual acts with regard to every other individual's interests then those other individuals have a strong reason to act with regard to that individual's interests (to continue to avoid adverse affects of the first individual's actions).
-However, it is not in an individual's interests to act within a system of rules biased against them. Therefore, the system of rules must be equitable and not biased toward any individual in order for the system to work at maximum efficiency. It is from this analysis that I derive basic rights.

One's basic rights are not arbitrary and are derived from very basic principles.

Much as the thought may give us comfort, this is unfortunately not the case, at least not in the sense of its mathematical analogue. These self-same principles often results in conflicting instructions, especially when more than one individual is concerned, i.e. society. I am sure you are adequately familiar with it.

"Intellectual rigor annoys people because it interferes with the pleasure they derive from allowing their wishes to be the fathers of their thoughts." - George F. Will

--"Much as the thought may give us comfort, this is unfortunately not the case, at least not in the sense of its mathematical analogue. These self-same principles often results in conflicting instructions, especially when more than one individual is concerned, i.e. society. I am sure you are adequately familiar with it."

--At the risk of revealing my ignorance, I have to say I am not familiar with this line of reasoning. Could you provide some examples or clear crippling flaws in my logic.

--"Oh realy? Care to list them? And after that, care to try to get a majority of representitives from different cultures to agree on them?"

--I outlined the general equation for those basic rights at the beginning of the thread. To derive all the basic rights to level of applicable law would probably be a thesis or book. Regardless of that, it would be far more useful to me if you pointed out flaws in the general equation. In addition, what representitives from different culters may or may not agree to is irrelevent. What we are talking about is what is an equitable/fair government which I would equate to a (morally) good gov.

How does one reconcile, for instance, freedom of expression and right to privacy? Or freedom of press to national security? Liberty to security? The needs of the individual and the needs of the society? The humans rights of the few v and the security of the many?

We try our best to balance between them, but it is far from perfect. These principles are by no means axiomatic in the mathematical sense.

"Intellectual rigor annoys people because it interferes with the pleasure they derive from allowing their wishes to be the fathers of their thoughts." - George F. Will

Good point, LC. What is "evil"? Is the mass destruction of non-combatants "evil"? If so, then what do you think of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, and Dresden?

Is the suppression of rights "evil"? If so, then how do you define those rights (which may not be as "self-evident" as you think)? How do you address the fact that all governments reserve the ability to suppress rights if they feel it is in the best interests of the state (or in some cases, the major media companies)?

Is dictatorship intrinsically "evil"? Only if you feel that democracy is intrinsically "good", and many people have died at the hands of both.

What about suffering and death? Is that bad? Of course. Is suffering and death acceptable if necessary to defned philosophical principles such as rights, democracy, and freedom? That seems to be what I'm hearing. When an idea is elevated above human life, is that evil? Historically, it has often led to acts which are universally decried as such.

In short, the situation's not that simple.

"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

Let me provided you a fun Quote From Bobba from Tales of the Bounty Hunters, this one by Daniel Keys Moran

Acutal Two fun Quotes

This one comes from a talking between him an Leia

Quote:

It was cruel to let the woman hope. "No What you're doing is moral wrong. The Rebels are in the wrong, and the Rebellion will fail_and it shouldLeai could not keep the outrage out of her voice. "Morally wrong? Us? We're fighting for our families and our loved ones, the ones who are still alive and the ones we've lost. The Empire destroyed my entire world, virtually everyone I ever knew as a chield_"Fett actually leaned forward slightly. "the worlds rose in rebelllion against the authoirty legally in place over them. The Emperor was within his rights to destroy them; they threatened the system of social justice that permites civilizations to exist." He paused. "I am sorry for the deaths of the innocent. But that happens in every war, Leia Organa. The innocent die in wars, and your side should not have started this one."

Of course this a short story by a new authory about as non-cannon as you can get to writting a somthing on some paper and holding it up as evidanceBut still he makes a good point

And another fun one this from the start of that story

Quote:

Everyone DiesIt's the final and only lasting Justice. Evil exists; it is intelligence in the service of entropy. When the side of a mountain slides down to kill a village, this is not evil for evil requires intent. Should a sentient being cause the landslide there is evil; and requires Justice as a conseqyence so that civilization can exist.There is no greater good than Justice and only if law serves Justice is it a good law. It is said correctly that law exists not for the Just but for the unjust, for the Just carry the law in thier hearts and do not need to call on it from afar.I bow to no one and I give service only for cause

Fun old quotes Comments?

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom WolfePardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton

It was cruel to let the woman hope. "No What you're doing is moral wrong. The Rebels are in the wrong, and the Rebellion will fail_and it should Leai could not keep the outrage out of her voice. "Morally wrong? Us? We're fighting for our families and our loved ones, the ones who are still alive and the ones we've lost. The Empire destroyed my entire world , virtually everyone I ever knew as a chield_" Fett actually leaned forward slightly. "the worlds rose in rebelllion against the authoirty legally in place over them. The Emperor was within his rights to destroy them; they threatened the system of social justice that permites civilizations to exist." He paused. "I am sorry for the deaths of the innocent. But that happens in every war, Leia Organa. The innocent die in wars, and your side should not have started this one."

I'd forgotten about that, but I remeber reading it and agreeing completely.

I go back to my arguement that, even if the Empire was evil, was it a necessary evil? I believe so. Eveyone else in the EU seems to consider Luke a hero for destroying the Death Star, but in some occasions we read about him pondering that subject. Luke seems to consider the act wrong because he killed a million soldiers in the blink of an eye, but he considered it necessary to help end the fight against the Empire.

We can see examples of this in real life. In 1939 a man named Francisco Franco led one side of a Civil War in Spain. He won, and in doing so stopped Communism from taking over Spain. He kept his country neutral throughout WW2 and probably saved the lives of many of his countrymen in doing so. While the rest of Europe was devistated, he led his country into economic prosperity. Is there something wrong with this picture? If you believe democracy is the only good government, then yes. Franco was a dictator in all but name, and his word was virtual law. The country of Spain did not become a democracy until his death. The Soviet Union hated him for it, and called for international opposition to his government. So was he evil? Many Spanish people wanted Communism, and he abridged their rights , he did not allow them to vote for the leader of the country, and he did not allow them to choose thir form of government, and he accepted Nazi help to win his civil war. I think that if he was evil, and I'm not saying he is, he was still the best possible thing to happen to Spain at the time.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum